Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosen
The point is they had a choice. It would appear that the choice they made worked out in everyone's best interest. That's great. Surely you can imagine a wide range of different scenarios where losing the option to abort would be hell on earth for all parties.
|
Most definitely. If the mother was single or the family in question was socioeconomically disadvantaged, for example, I'd consider those both legitimate arguments for an abortion of a disabled child.
However, I don't agree that the thought process that 'everyone should have a choice' should translate into an accomodation for
any choice made for
any reason. I guess that's the moderation I'm seeking. If the choice is made out of necessity or due to a severe impediment that would drastically alter the lives of those affected, I understand that. If it's just a matter of an otherwise wealthy, productive set of parents saying "nah, we'd rather our kids fit our preconceived definition of perfect, that'd make our privileged lives even easier" then we'll simply be advocating policy that eradicates all the "impure" children in favor of a slightly "less challenging" existence. But how can genetics truly predict the level of "challenge" any child presents his/her parents?
Eventually, taken to an extreme, you'll have parents selecting the exact traits they desire their children to have, and that's a rabbit hole I don't consider remotely healthy for humans to chase. For genetic reasons alone, it's best for humanity that we
don't streamline future generations.